Busca um(a) Tarefas/providências (o prazo vem no campo deadLine) por id (OData /Tasks/{id}). Use $expand para sub-recursos.
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| ids | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| $expand | No | ||
| $select | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the deadline field is named `deadLine`, the endpoint uses OData, and bulk execution via `ids` is supported. There is no contradiction with the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is remarkably efficient, using two short sentences to convey core behavior, OData context, deadline field, and bulk support. Every clause contributes meaning and there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the primary get-by-id scenario and bulk support, but it does not describe what `query` does, how `$select` works, or anything about the response shape. Since there is no output schema and no additional parameter descriptions, these missing details prevent the description from being fully contextualized for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to explain parameters. It successfully explains `id` (fetch by primary key), `ids` (dependency support), and `$expand` (sub-resources). However, it leaves `$select` and `query` unexplained, which leaves a material gap for an agent trying to construct advanced calls.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states this tool fetches a single Tarefas/providências by id via the explicit OData path `/Tasks/{id}`. It distinguishes itself from siblings like `legalone_list_tasks` by emphasizing id-based retrieval, and the phrase `por id` eliminates ambiguity about the resource and scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context: use this when you have an id, and use `$expand` for sub-recursos. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use scenarios, but the id-focused language strongly differentiates it from the sibling list tool without further elaboration.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The core legalone_get/list/create/update tools are clearly separated by entity and verb, so common lookups are easy to pick. However, legalone_odata_get and legalone_request duplicate the named CRUD surface, lawsuits vs litigations are near-synonyms in a legal context, and connect/toolkit_info/authenticate have overlapping connection/status duties. Descriptions help resolve most cases, but several tool pairs could still be misselected.
The majority of tools follow a consistent legalone_<verb>_<entity> pattern, which is good. But auxiliary tools break the pattern: legalone_customfield_options, legalone_odata_get, legalone_request, legalone_metadata, authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info use bare verbs, nouns, or platform-infrastructure names. The result is mixed conventions that remain readable but are not consistent across the whole set.
With 45 tools, this set is well beyond the 3–15 well-scoped range and above the 25-tool threshold for too many. Many tools are repetitive CRUD variants per entity, plus several infrastructure and marketplace tools that inflate the agent's selection space. A smaller entity-focused set plus one generic OData escape hatch would have covered virtually the same functionality.
Core legal entities like lawsuits, litigations, contacts, appointments, tasks, and updates have create/get/list/update coverage. However, documents, users, areas, service types, and custom field definitions lack named update/delete helpers, and no entity has a dedicated delete tool. The generic legalone_request/odata_get escape hatches fill these gaps, but the lifecycle coverage is uneven.